You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com> on 2002/02/05 22:09:32 UTC
Any vetos on releasing 1.3.24...
I'm still gunning to t/r and release 1.3.24 within the week. If this
creates heartburn for anyone, speak up now.
--
===========================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
Re: Any vetos on releasing 1.3.24...
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
* On 2002-02-05 at 16:42,
Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com> excited the electrons to say:
>
> I am really against letting this XP issue hold up the 1.3.24 release.
What's the reason for *not* waiting? In what way did 1.3.23 regress?
(I.e., what deadly bug is in 1.3.23 that wasn't in 1.3.22?)
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
Re: Any vetos on releasing 1.3.24...
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@covalent.net>.
From: "Bill Stoddard" <bi...@wstoddard.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 3:47 PM
> I am really against letting this XP issue hold up the 1.3.24 release. Allan Edwards has
> been able to reproduce the problem and it is looking more and more like an XP bug. We
> send a buffer full of "A"'s on the send and the network gets an equal number of trashed
> bytes.
Agreed... I suggested to Jim that if this bug isn't resolved in the next two
weeks while other bugs are addressed, then we release 1.3.24.
Going back to Roy's point - too many releases, too fast, undermines the
credibility that we are really have our eyes on the ball. Waiting a full
month for 1.3.24 isn't unrealistic, and gives Netware folks a chance to
test the many improvements Brad just introduced.
Re: Any vetos on releasing 1.3.24...
Posted by Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>.
I am really against letting this XP issue hold up the 1.3.24 release. Allan Edwards has
been able to reproduce the problem and it is looking more and more like an XP bug. We
send a buffer full of "A"'s on the send and the network gets an equal number of trashed
bytes.
In the unlikely case it turns out to be an Apache problem, we fix it and roll another
release.
Bill
> From: "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@jaguNET.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 3:09 PM
>
>
> > I'm still gunning to t/r and release 1.3.24 within the week. If this
> > creates heartburn for anyone, speak up now.
>
> Jim,
>
> I'm suspicious that whatever bug we hit on 2.0 with XP services is
> the same bug as the XP send/recv failure encounters on 1.3.
>
> I sure as heck want to track that bug today and solve the problem.
> If we prove up some massive fault in 1.3 we can get that into 1.3.24.
> If we can't track it down in the next two weeks or so, I say punt and
> give the folks 1.3.24. [Note this seems to be XP and not NT in general.]
>
> Bill
>
>
Re: Any vetos on releasing 1.3.24...
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
At 3:17 PM -0600 2/5/02, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>From: "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@jaguNET.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 3:09 PM
>
>
>> I'm still gunning to t/r and release 1.3.24 within the week. If this
>> creates heartburn for anyone, speak up now.
>
>Jim,
>
> I'm suspicious that whatever bug we hit on 2.0 with XP services is
>the same bug as the XP send/recv failure encounters on 1.3.
>
> I sure as heck want to track that bug today and solve the problem.
>If we prove up some massive fault in 1.3 we can get that into 1.3.24.
>If we can't track it down in the next two weeks or so, I say punt and
>give the folks 1.3.24. [Note this seems to be XP and not NT in general.]
>
My concern with the above is that I'm *sure* that there are more
Solaris Apache 1.3 users than XP Apache 1.3 users, and 1.3.23 right
now is broken for Solaris. Making them wait 2 weeks while we track
down an XP problem doesn't seem quite right to me. I'd prefer getting
1.3.24 out ASAP. In the meantime, let me look into making the Solaris
patch available and changing the site to reflect its availability.
--
===========================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
RE: Any vetos on releasing 1.3.24...
Posted by Ryan Bloom <rb...@covalent.net>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:wrowe@covalent.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 1:18 PM
> To: dev@httpd.apache.org; jim@jaguNET.com
> Subject: Re: Any vetos on releasing 1.3.24...
>
> From: "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@jaguNET.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 3:09 PM
>
>
> > I'm still gunning to t/r and release 1.3.24 within the week. If this
> > creates heartburn for anyone, speak up now.
Jim, I would also suggest that the t/r waits until after the bug db
issues have been resolved. Other than that, +1.
Ryan
Re: Any vetos on releasing 1.3.24...
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@covalent.net>.
From: "Jim Jagielski" <ji...@jaguNET.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 3:09 PM
> I'm still gunning to t/r and release 1.3.24 within the week. If this
> creates heartburn for anyone, speak up now.
Jim,
I'm suspicious that whatever bug we hit on 2.0 with XP services is
the same bug as the XP send/recv failure encounters on 1.3.
I sure as heck want to track that bug today and solve the problem.
If we prove up some massive fault in 1.3 we can get that into 1.3.24.
If we can't track it down in the next two weeks or so, I say punt and
give the folks 1.3.24. [Note this seems to be XP and not NT in general.]
Bill